Andrew Monkhouse

The applicant in a human rights complaint sought to amend his application to add two personal respondents and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The respondent opposed the amendments and brought its own request to allow a witness to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal denied the request to add personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to do so when the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the monetary remedy, noting the absence of prejudice.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's unopposed request for its witness to testify by teleconference from Australia due to financial hardship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and subsequently commenced a civil action for breach of contract and negligence, which included an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action was largely framed in tort and contract and did not seek relief for the same Code violations.

However, to avoid inconsistent findings due to overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the civil action is resolved.